Saturday, March 26, 2011

Glenn Beck's lies support his reactionary agenda

Glenn Beck is a reactionary, i.e., someone who would like to see the country returned to some previous status. Many conservatives would like to see the health care insurance reform act reversed, but reactionaries like Beck want to see virtually all of the political progress for the American people reversed and have the United States return to a condition similar to the pre-welfare state of the mid-19th Century. Beck has not hidden this agenda. To that end, Beck deceives his listeners. The following are some of the deceptions that were made Beck this week as documented by the liberal media watchdogs, Media Matters for America. (If anyone can find where the research done by Media Matters anywhere on this blog is flawed, then by all means leave a comment on the relevant post indicating where they have the facts wrong and how Beck is correct on the facts.) It has already been pointed out that Beck lies to support his agenda, so the following examples are further support for that claim.

lies to support his reactionary agenda

Beck works hard to undermine the legitimacy of Media Matters because if he did not, the lies that their researchers uncover from what Beck claims as fact would undermine his credibility. If fact, they do undermine Beck's credibility; so Beck "undermines" their credibility in his supporters minds by telling them that Media Matters is funded by billionaire, liberal philanthropist, George Soros. Beck undermines his authority as a judge of good and evil when he claims that Soros is "evil." Soros is "evil" to Mr. Beck because he funds liberal groups, opposed the re-election of George Bush, supports Democratic candidates and promotes reforms that would stabilize financial markets and the capitalist system as a whole. By that criteria, all wealthy liberals are "evil." Beck makes far too many intentional false claims (lies) about people and conveys blatant hypocrisy far too often to be pointing an accusatory finger about of good and evil; but that doesn't stop him. For more on Soros click here. To read about some of the lies that Beck has told about Soros click here and here.

Glenn Beck falsely claimed that the New Hampshire Supreme Court prevented "parents" from home schooling their children based on a case that simply resolved a dispute between two divorced parents over the best way to educate their daughter. Beck has previously demonized public schools for "indoctrinat[ing]" children and "beg[ged]" people to home-school their children.

Beck: NH Supreme Court Is Denying Parents The Right To Home-School Children

From the March 24 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN BECK: There is a story today out of New Hampshire, and they have the Supreme Court. I don't have it -- shoot, I left it in the other room. The Supreme Court has--of New Hampshire--has just said that a child who was getting home-schooled has to be put into public school because the religious teachings of their parents is limiting their exposure to too much. And so the Supreme Court of the "Live Free or Die" state has said, yeah, the kid's got to go to public school, against the parents' wishes. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 3/24/11]

But The Case Had Nothing To Do With The Right To Home-Schooling

AP: "Divorced Parents Who Couldn't Agree On How To Educate Their Daughter Have Brought Their Fight To New Hampshire's Highest Court." The Associated Press reported:

Divorced parents who couldn't agree on how to educate their daughter have brought their fight to New Hampshire's highest court in a case that looks at whether families have a constitutional right to home-school their kids.

Religious freedom groups have trumpeted the cause of Brenda Voydatch of Meredith, who home-schooled her 11-year-old daughter, Amanda, from first through fourth grade.

Voydatch claims her rights were violated when a court ordered that Amanda attend public school, after the girl's father, Martin Kurowski, said his ex-wife's strict Christian teachings were socially isolating their child and they could not settle on an alternative to home-schooling.

[...]

Kurowski wanted his daughter exposed to different points of view and more opportunities for social interaction than home school afforded, court documents state.

Voydatch sent her daughter to public school in Meredith for certain classes, such as gym and art, but home-schooled her using education materials from Bob Jones University, a fundamental Christian college in South Carolina.

Family Division Judge Lucinda Sadler ordered in 2009 that Amanda begin attending public school that fall after the parents failed to agree on a private or parochial school. The judge said the ruling did not infringe on the parents' religious freedom because "both are free to provide religious guidance" to their child. [The Associated Press, 1/6/11, via Boston.com]

Parents Had Agreed To "Joint Decision-Making Responsibility" For Their Daughter.From the Belknap County Family Division Court's decision:

In their parenting Plan, the parties agreed to join decision-making responsibility for Amanda, including a provision requiring them to engage a mediator or parenting coordinator if they disagree about major decisions for Amanda. The parties reserved for the Court the issue of whether Amanda would attend public school for the 2009-2010 school year, or continue to be home-schooled by Ms. Voydatch. [Belknap County Court, Kurowski v. Voydatch, 7/14/09, in-text citations deleted for clarity]

The Court Decision Was "Only About Resolving A Dispute Between Two Parents"

NH Supreme Court's Unanimous Ruling: "This Case Is Only About Resolving A Dispute Between Two Parents."The Associated Press reported:

The New Hampshire Supreme Court on Wednesday said a lower court acted appropriately in ordering an 11-year-old girl to attend public school after her father claimed his ex-wife's strict Christian teachings were socially isolating the child.

Though religious freedom groups trumpeted the cause of Brenda Voydatch of Meredith as a violation of her constitutional rights, the Supreme Court disagreed, saying the case was a family court dispute between the parents that the court was well within its jurisdiction to resolve.

"While this case has religious overtones, it is not about religion. While it involves home-schooling, it is not about the merits of home versus public schooling," the court wrote in its unanimous ruling. "This case is only about resolving a dispute between two parents, with equal constitutional parenting rights and joint decision-making responsibility, who have been unable to agree how to best educate (their) daughter." [The Associated Press, 3/16/11, via The Boston Herald]

NH Justice Lynn: "This Is Not State Versus Parent." The Associated Press reported:

The justices peppered both sides with questions about whether it rises to a constitutional case or is simply a family court dispute between the parents that the court was well within its jurisdiction to resolve.

"This is not state versus parent," Justice Robert Lynn said. "The state was forced into this because it's a dispute between the parents that someone had to resolve." [The Associated Press, 1/6/11, via Boston.com]

Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen: "This Case Is Much More About Divorce And Parenting Than It Is About Religion." From a PoliticsDaily.com column by Andrew Cohen:

The story of Martin Kurowski, his ex-wife, Brenda Voydatch, and their daughter, Amanda, is regrettably a common one. Yet the conflict between the parents over the future of their child has made it all the way to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, where oral argument in the case was heard Thursday. And, thanks to a conservative advocacy group that specializes in freedom-of-religion cases, it has made it onto the national stage as well, perfectly timed to coincide with the latest skirmishes over the role of religion in American public life. The intersection of religion with public eduction [sic] always draws a crowd and great fervor. But this case is much more about divorce and parenting than it is about religion -- and New Hampshire's highest court will likely agree. [PoliticsDaily.com, 1/9/11]

Beck Has Demonized Public Schools For "Indoctrinat[ing]" Children

Beck: "We Should Abolish Public Schools" Due To Indoctrination. From the June 22, 2010, edition of Beck's radio show:

STU BURGUIERE: With the exception of the hardest-core libertarians, you know, public schools are not really on the docket except for the way that they're run poorly. It's not like we're necessarily -- there's not a hard-core movement right now to get rid of all public schools, we just want them to run correctly. I mean, I just, it's one of those things, it's like such a --

BECK: Now, wait a minute. Hang on a second. You're saying we don't want to get rid of all public schools?

BURGUIERE: Oh, I think private schools are clearly better than public schools. But my point is it's not a top of the mind issue at the moment where everyone's like, we must ban all public schools

BECK: Now wait a minute, don't you think if we could make that --- I mean, maybe we should make that a priority.

BURGUIERE: I --

BECK: What is our problem, what is our problem in America right now? I know, it's the internet. There's not enough high-speed internet; there's not enough broadband. Our problem with America is we don't even know who we are anymore. The problem in America is, we don't even know the truth of who we are.

The problem in America is, we are being indoctrinated from dawn until dusk, every single day, 7 days a week. We're being indoctrinated by Washington; we're being indoctrinated by our unions; we're being indoctrinated in our schools; we're being indoctrinated in the media. We're being indoctrinated. What are you - what are you even talking about? You're darn right we should abolish public schools. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 6/22/10]

And Beck started the week by suggesting that the President is a Marxist, his favorite lie next to the President being a progressive/fascist/Nazi, a claim which clearly demonstrates Beck's profound ignorance about political theory

That Beck lies and we (Media Matters, The Glenn Beck Report, News Hounds, miscellaneous other bloggers critical of Mr. Beck including this Review) can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, then why do his supporters not comprehend that Beck lies? Not only does Beck manipulate his viewers emotions and needs, but they share with him ideological hatred for Obama and opposition to any government programs beyond national security (military) and narrowly defined domestic security (police). When ideological partisans hear facts that do not comport with their beliefs, those facts actually backfire. Try to explain on Glenn Beck dot come that Beck lies, and his supporters defend Beck with ad hominem attacks, lies, distortions, threats and close-minded indifference or antagonism toward the facts that expose many of Beck's claims and deceptions. That is why people who have not yet been taken in by Beck's manipulative propaganda need to be warned. Please, take some time soon to become, for 20-30 minutes, Paul(ette) Revere and help warn our fellow citizens that the liar is coming. For a summary about Glenn Beck, see "Becoming Paul Revere"

Andrew, I agree with everything you wrote except the "neo nazi" part. He may stir racial anxieties, but he really is anti-Nazi and says so on his show.

I'm a harsh critic, but I am profoundly honest about what I've heard from Beck. He is an extremist, to be sure; but he's really not a Nazi. I'm far more concerned about his desire to tear down the wall of separation between church and state than I am about his racial anxieties. He seems more inclined toward theocracy than fascism.